Re:Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been...
by jdgiese on Sunday May 22, 2016 @12:19PM
(#11749146)
I definitely agree that people are slow to switch from what they know, but I don't think it is impossible to build software that will make people jump ship on the old stuff.
Take Sketch for example (http://www.sketchapp.com). Everyone on our team used to use Adobe Illustrator, and now everyone uses Sketch instead, because for what we do, it is simpler and better.
Re:Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been...
by knikravesh on Monday May 23, 2016 @02:27PM
(#11755786)
Do you think that in this particular case (Illustrator vs Sketch), the fact that Adobe employed a subscription model sped up the process of people being a bit uncomfortable and looking for alternative solutions?
Re:Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been...
by scalio on Sunday May 22, 2016 @03:14PM
(#11749839)
Good example, I think it is easier to dislodge old tractors with tools built for one specific thing, i.e. that do less, but do it so much simpler that they're just a joy to use (at least in comparison).
Re:Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been...
by tonyedgecombe on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @11:46AM
(#11762498)
I've often though a good strategy would be to look at some incumbent (Quickbooks, Photshop, etc) then choose a subset of their customers (Landlords, Real estate agents, etc) you can target more effectively than they can.
This is a core element of my questions that other answers are unfortunately not addressing. Even if you make software that's less clunky than legacy-grade Adobe Kamatsu-tractor like offerings, how do you make make switching lucrative to the point of achieving self-sustainability?